137 karma · joined August 23, 2012
I didn't say it was required, but it's in the "choose-two" allotment of breadths.
What's the $5/$3 incentive for me to use this instead of using the free apps I already have for SSH'ing on Android/iPhone, and just having bash scripts saved into my home dir?
Presumably leaving out of disgust for Clapper's lies; but the media will leave it short like this to make it seem he's marginally apathetic.
It's actually extremely interesting; the fix even goes into editing assembly if the source of the affect program isn't available to recompile.
On another note: GO BEARS! Down with the tree!
We got a massive petition signed to abolish the new logo, and the outcry when they announced this was overwhelmingly negative on campus. No one liked it, and it seems the administration has realized that.
Edited: [1] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/06/30/amazo...
If Amazon charged $20 for a book if I were to buy it on my laptop, but $10 for that same book if I buy it with my phone, why in the hell would I buy it on my laptop? How is that immoral? I'm presented with two options: $10 or $20 for the same item. The company has offered me a contract of payment and I am to choose one, or I can take my patronage elsewhere. This is not a matter of breaking into a server and SQLi'ing until you can make an item free; this is the company offering me something for cheaper, depending on how I buy it.
If there were no 'hack', and I went on that plane knowing full well that I was going to purchase internet access, I would buy the half-off solution and tether to my phone.
As a user, this is a valid set of decisions. Since they're implementing this in a stupid way, it's perfectly valid to exploit their method and pay for the cheaper item.
If you went to the supermarket and found an item at $10, but you had the option of doing 5 jumping jacks to lower the price to $5, what would you do? Is it immoral to do jumping jacks?